According to the companies, the zipper slider and pull on the fleece pullovers can detach, posing a choking hazard to young children. Reebok has received two reports from consumers of zipper sliders/pulls that have detached. No injuries have been reported.

Only Reebok fleece pullover/pant sets with navy blue quarter-zip zippers are being recalled. The fleece pullover/pant sets were sold in navy blue/red and navy blue/pink in sizes up to children's size 7. "Reebok" is printed across the front of the pullover. The pullovers have a hood that can be folded under the collar. Some of the recalled pullovers were sold with matching mittens. The style numbers were printed on the store tag only and end in: 1816, 2816, 3816, 1816N, 2816N, 1814, 2814, 4814, and 5814.

Manufactured in Taiwan and China, the sets were sold exclusively at Gordmans, Mervyns, JC Penney, Kohl's, The Bon, Fred Meyer, Ross, DD's, Edisons, Macy's, AJ Wright, and Reebok Corporate Headquarters retail store in Canton, Mass. from September 2004 through February 2005 for between $17 and $36.

Remedy: Consumers should immediately take the recalled product away from young children and contact Adjmi to receive a replacement product.

Consumer Contact: For more information or to receive instructions on receiving a replacement product, contact Adjmi at (800) 873-5570 between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m. ET Monday through Friday, or visit http://www.Reebok.com.

City Administrator Tony Rivera told The Associated Press that a city attorney had notified officials about the ruling. He commented that the city "should be glad to not have it hanging over our heads."

Filed by Alabaster resident Kevin Mixon three years ago, the lawsuit accused police of harassing blacks and Hispanics solely because of their race or ethnicity. The suit, which sought millions of dollars in damages and injunctions against the city and police department, was filed on behalf of all others who contended they had been victims of racial profiling.

Previously, U.S. District Judge Sharon Blackburn dismissed some of the lawsuit's claims though she did leave standing the claim that the alleged racial profiling was a result of policy set by Police Chief Stanley Oliver and ex-Chief Larry Rollan. In an order signed September 30, U.S. Magistrate Harwell G. Davis dismissed that final remaining claim in the case, a day after Mixon's lawyers and the city filed a joint stipulation of dismissal.

ANGELCITI ENTERTAINMENT: Faces CA Suit V. Online Gambling Ads -------------------------------------------------------------Angelciti Entertainment faces a class action filed in the Superior Court of the State of California, for accepting and placing advertising for on-line gambling companies. The suit also names numerous other online content companies like Google, Yahoo and Overture, as defendants.

The suit seeks relief based upon the fact that these companies aided and abetted illegal activities under California law by accepting advertising fees and otherwise promoting such activities. The action is brought as a Private Attorney General Action seeking disgorgement of the advertising fees earned by such companies for the advertising, plus penalties. The listed plaintiffs included a gambler, who claims to have lost more than $100,000, Indian Tribes of California, who claimed they lost gambling revenues they would have otherwise earned, and the State of California, that lost taxation and other revenues they would have earned had such gambling activities occurred at the Indian Gambling locations in the State of California.

ANNTAYLOR RETAIL: To Seek Consolidation of CA Overtime Lawsuits ---------------------------------------------------------------AnnTaylor Retail, Inc. to ask the California Superior Court for Los Angeles County to consolidated two similar class actions filed against it, alleging violations of the state's overtime law.

On February 15, 2005, two former managers of the Company's California stores filed a purported class action in Los Angeles County Superior Court alleging that the Company misclassified its store managers and assistant store managers as exempt from California overtime wage and hour laws, thereby depriving them of overtime pay. On May 5, 2005, a second purported class action was filed, although not yet served, against the Company in San Francisco County Superior Court by a former manager of one of the Company's stores in California alleging violations of California labor laws with respect to overtime pay as well as adequate meal and rest periods.

These actions are similar to numerous suits filed against retailers and others with operations in California. The class members in both actions seek recovery in an unstated dollar amount of unpaid wages, statutory penalties, attorneys' fees and costs and injunctive relief.

According to the company, the water heaters can accumulate soot on the burners, posing a fire hazard.

The recall involves 75-gallon propane gas water heaters. The heaters have the name "A.O. Smith," "Reliance," "Apollo," "State," or "Maytag" on the side of the unit. The model number is located on the rating plate. Only units with the model numbers listed below and manufactured between January 2004 and July 2005 are included in the recall.

If your unit has one of the model numbers listed above, locate the serial number on the rating plate to determine if it was manufactured between January 2004 and July 2005. The serial numbers of units manufactured between January 2004 and July 2005 are listed below.

ARDENT HEALTH: Retail Pharmacies Launch Fraud Suit in NM Court--------------------------------------------------------------Ardent Health Services, Inc. faces a class action lawsuit whereby certain retail pharmacies that participate in the State of New Mexico Medicaid program are seeking to recover alleged underpayments of prescriptions and dispensing fees.

While the Company believes that the amount accrued at December31, 2004 is adequate to provide for settlement of this matter, the ultimate outcome of this lawsuit could have a material effect on its business, financial condition or results of operations, the Company stated in a regulatory filing.

AXEDA SYSTEMS: PA Court Approves Securities Lawsuit Settlement--------------------------------------------------------------The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania granted final approval to the settlement of the consolidated securities class action filed against Axeda Systems, Inc. (formerly RAVISENT Technologies, Inc.) and certain of its officers and directors in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, styled "In re RAVISENT Technologies, Inc. Securities Litigation Civil Action No. 00-CV-1014."

The suit was filed on behalf of purchasers of the Company's common stock from July 15, 1999 through April 27, 2000. This complaint alleges violations of the federal securities laws, specifically Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933, Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder.

On July 3, 2000, the Company and the other defendants filed a motion to dismiss the consolidated and amended class action complaint. On July 13, 2004, the Court denied the motion, and the discovery stay was lifted. On September 24, 2004 the defendants filed a stipulation with the court, suspending motion and discovery deadlines pending negotiation of the settlement documents. On October 23, 2004, the parties through their respective counsel executed a memorandum of understanding to settle the class action for $7,000. On December 15, 2004, the parties filed with the Court a Stipulation and Agreement of Settlement to settle the class action for $7,000. The Court issued a Preliminary Approval Order on December 21, 2004. A fairness hearing was held on April 6, 2005. On April 18, 2005, the Court issued its Order and Final Judgment approving the settlement.

The suit is styled "FINK v. WILDE, et al, 2:00-cv-01014-RBS," filed in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, under Judge R. Barclay Surrick.

BEVERLY ENTERPRISES: Pays $18.9M to Settle Bradley, Saline Suits----------------------------------------------------------------Beverly Enterprises Inc. agreed to pay nearly $19 million to settle two class action lawsuits after the company put up a $20 million bond because of a judge's frustrations with the company's conduct, The Arkansas Democrat Gazette reports.

Plaintiffs' attorneys Jack Wagoner and Gene Ludwig, both of Little Rock told The Arkansas Democrat Gazette that about 800 residents of Beverly's nursing homes in Bradley and Saline counties would share in the $18.9 million settlement. A hearing will be held January 6, 2006 in Bradley County Circuit Court to approve the settlement of the lawsuits in Saline and Bradley counties. According to plaintiffs' attorneys, a portion of the settlement also will be returned to the government to cover Medicare / Medicaid payments during the four-year period the lawsuits cover.

Consolidated last month into one suit in Bradley County, the suits allege wrongful care in two Beverly facilities over a period that began in December 1998 and ended in June 2004. In a press statement regarding the deal, Beverly said, "While we are confident that Beverly ultimately would have prevailed in these cases, the defense process would have taken years and cost the company far more than the settlement amount. Given the sale process in which Beverly is involved, we felt it was in everyone's best interest to put these matters behind us and get on with the business of providing care to our residents."

Saline County Circuit Judge Grisham Phillips ordered Beverly to post a $20 million bond in July after he became frustrated with the company. Judge Phillips threatened Beverly executives in June with jail after he found the company in contempt for failing to release e-mail messages and other electronic data.

Bradley County Circuit Judge Robert Bynum Gibson granted the class action status and a default judgment against Beverly in June after he said the company had practiced a shell game throughout the discovery process. The company turned over a partial list of former residents' names, while defendants were able to find additional names by researching area obituary announcements.

Beverly was ordered in both cases to pay a total of $58,525 in attorney fees for failing to release information during the discovery period, in which the defendant and plaintiff exchange information relevant to the case. Beverly appealed the bond order to the Arkansas Supreme Court, which denied the appeal and ordered Beverly on August 8 to post the bond.

Fort Smith-based Beverly, the nation's No. 2 nursing home chain, is being sold to an investor group called North American Senior Care Inc.

The complaint, which was filed in the California Superior Court in the County of Los Angeles, was brought both as a purported stockholder class action and as a purported derivative action on behalf of the Company against all of the members of the Company's board of directors and certain executive officers. It alleges that the Company's directors breached their fiduciary duties and violated the Company's bylaws by, among other things, failing to hold an annual stockholders' meeting on a timely basis and allegedly ignoring certain unspecified internal control problems, and that certain executive officers were unjustly enriched by their receipt of certain compensation items.

The complaint seeks an order requiring that an annual meeting of our stockholders be held, an award of unspecified damages in favor of the Company and against the individual defendants and an award of attorneys' fees.

In 2003, a group of investors sued the Company, claiming the Kansas City-based developer of medical records software used conference calls and securities filings in the second half of 2002 and early 2003 to paint a misleadingly rosy picture of the company's future and inflate its stock price. In April of that same year, Cerner officials announced that they expected lower than estimated revenue and earnings, which caused stock share prices to drop from $32.09 to $17.44 in one day.

U.S. District Judge Dean Whipple threw out the suit last summer. The federal appeals court agreed with Judge Whipple's reasoning that the plaintiffs didn't provide enough information on how the company's statements were false and how corporate executives personally benefited from those statements.

The Complaint alleges that the Company, in violation of California law, has in place a mandatory uniform policy that requires its employees to purchase and wear Chico's clothing and accessories as a condition of employment.

It is the Company's position that no such mandatory uniform policy exists. Although the Company believed it had strong defenses to the allegations in this case, the Company agreed to participate in a voluntary private mediation on November 10, 2004. A settlement was reached at the mediation, and the parties are in the process of preparing and finalizing the settlement documents. The settlement must be approved by the Court at both a preliminary and a final approval hearing before it becomes final. On July 27, 2005, the Court gave its preliminary approval to the settlement and, as a result, the class members will be notified of the settlement and given the opportunity to partake in or opt out of the settlement. The settlement is still subject to the Court's final approval.

CHICO'S FAS: Discovery Proceeds in Privacy Lawsuit in CA Court--------------------------------------------------------------Discovery is proceeding in the putative class action suit filed against Chico's FAS, Inc. in the Superior Court for the State of California, County of Los Angeles, styled "Marie Nguyen v. Chico's FAS, Inc."

The Complaint alleges that the Company, in violation of California law, requested or required its customers to provide personal information as part of a credit card transaction. In a SEC filing, the Company said that it believes "no contract, express or implied, existed between the Company and the plaintiff and that the Company did not engage in any fraudulent Conduct." The Company has filed an answer denying the material allegations of the Complaint and the parties are now engaged in the discovery process. Based on testimony and information that has been obtained in the discovery process, the Company is asserting certain counterclaims against the plaintiff. No trial date has been set.

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA: Lawsuit Seeks Warning Labels on Milk Sold---------------------------------------------------------------Ten Washington, D.C.-area residents launched a class action lawsuit against milk suppliers and retailers, asking that labels, which warn consumers of the effects of lactose intolerance, be required on milk sold in the area, The Associated Press reports.

In the suit, which is being financed by the Washington-based Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine, an advocate of a vegan diet, the 10 plaintiffs claim that they have suffered cramps, diarrhea and other gastrointestinal problems from consuming milk. Among the plaintiffs recruited by the Physicians Committee are seven African-Americans, who tend to have higher rates of lactose intolerance, which is the inability to fully digest lactose, the sugar found in milk. Additionally, the group also includes a 7-year-old African-American boy. The lawsuit names as defendants the Giant and Safeway supermarket chains; Horizon Organic; Dean Foods; Nestle Holdings; Farmland Dairies; Shenandoah's Pride; Stonyfield Farm; and Cloverland Farms Dairy.

Milton Mills, a black physician who is lead plaintiff in the suit, told The Associated Press, "Lactose intolerance is very prevalent in persons of color. As a physician, I see people who are dealing with conditions related to their inability to digest lactose. They're led to believe they need to include dairy for health benefits. That is not true."

Dr. Mills, 47, said that when he was in his early 20s, he got sick every afternoon after consuming frozen yogurt. He thought he might be seriously ill, until his mother told him he just had a problem digesting milk.

Susan Ruland, vice president for communications at the International Dairy Foods Association, ridiculed the suit, saying, "It's just another attempt on the part of an animal rights group to attack dairy and milk products." She also told The Associated Press, "They're trying a new strategy of suing people right and left. It's unfortunate to see that when it has to do with an issue of nutrition."

Dr. Mills, who serves as the Physician Committee's associate director of preventive medicine, told The Associated Press that his focus has been exclusively on human health. He added, "Obviously, I don't want to see people beat up animals, but animal rights is not my motivation for being involved." Dr. Mills also said he became a vegetarian at the age of 16 because he was convinced that was a healthier way to eat.

Ms. Ruland acknowledged that minority groups have higher rates of lactose intolerance, but she pointed out that often a person could overcome the problem by gradually increasing dairy consumption. She contends that it's a worthwhile goal, due to the healthy ingredients found in milk such as calcium, protein and Vitamin D.

The lawsuit was filed on behalf of all people who buy milk in Washington, D.C. It seeks a required label such as: "Warning - If you experience diarrhea or stomach cramps after consuming milk, you may be lactose intolerant. Check with your physician." It also asks for no more than $100,000 in total damages for the 10 plaintiffs.

DYNEX CAPITAL: Shareholders File Stock Fraud Lawsuit in S.D. NY---------------------------------------------------------------Dynex Capital, Inc. asked the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York to dismiss the amended class action filed against it, its subsidiary MERIT Securities Corporation, Stephen J. Benedetti and Thomas H. Potts by the Teamsters Local 445 Freight Division Pension Fund.

The lawsuit purports to be a class action on behalf of purchasers of MERIT Series 13 securitization financing bonds, which are collateralized by manufactured housing loans. The allegations include federal securities laws violations in connection with the issuance in August 1999 by MERIT Securities Corporation of the Company's MERIT Series 13 bonds. The suit also alleges fraud and negligent misrepresentations in connection with MERIT Series 13.

On May 31, 2005, the Teamsters filed an amended class action complaint. The amended complaint dropped all state common law claims but added federal securities claims related to the MERIT Series 12 securitization financing bonds. The Company filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint on July 15, 2005 to which Teamsters filed a response with the District Court on August 15, 2005.

FLOWERS FOODS: Receives $1.4M in High Fructose Corn Syrup Pact--------------------------------------------------------------Flowers Foods, Inc. received approximately $1.4 million related to the settlement of a class action lawsuit concerning price-fixing in the sale of high fructose corn syrup (HFCS) purchased by the Company during the years 1991 to 1995.

The suit, styled "In re: High Fructose Corn Syrup Antitrust Litigation Master File No. 95-1477," filed in the United States District Court for the Central District of Illinois," relates to purchases of high fructose corn syrup made by the Company and others. About 20 corn syrup buyers initially filed the suit in the United States District Court for the Central District of Illinois against several corn processors, alleging that they violated antitrust laws from 1988 to 1995 by conspiring to artificially inflate the price of high fructose corn syrup. About 2,000 plaintiffs joined the suit, including Coca-Cola Co., PepsiCo Inc., Kraft Foods Inc. and Quaker Oats, an earlier Class Action Reporter story (July 30,2004) states.

In July 2004, the parties in the suit forged a $531 million settlement for the suit. The settlement amount was allocated to each class action recipient based on the proportion of its purchases of high fructose corn syrup from these suppliers during the period 1991 through 1995 to the total of such purchases by all class action recipients.

The suit is styled "In Re High Fructose Corn Syrup Antitrust Litigation, Master File No. 95-1477," filed in the United States District court for the Central District of Illinois, Peoria Division. Representing the plaintiffs were:

GLS CAPITAL: PA Court Delays Certification Hearing For Tax Suit---------------------------------------------------------------Class certification hearing for the lawsuit filed against GLS Capital, Inc., and the County of Allegheny, Pennsylvania has been delayed and is expected to be rescheduled.

Plaintiffs were two local businesses seeking status to represent as a class, delinquent taxpayers in Allegheny County whose delinquent tax liens had been assigned to the Company. Plaintiffs challenged the right of Allegheny County and the Company to collect certain interest, costs and expenses related to delinquent property tax receivables in Allegheny County, and whether the County had the right to assign the delinquent property tax receivables to the Company and therefore employ procedures for collection enjoyed by Allegheny County under state statute. This lawsuit was related to the purchase by the Company of delinquent property tax receivables from Allegheny County in 1997, 1998, and 1999.

In July 2001, the Commonwealth Court issued a ruling that addressed, among other things:

(1) the right of the Company to charge to the delinquent taxpayer a rate of interest of 12% per annum versus 10% per annum on the collection of its delinquent property tax receivables,

(2) the charging of a full month's interest on a partial month's delinquency;

(3) the charging of attorney's fees to the delinquent taxpayer for the collection of such tax receivables, and

(4) the charging to the delinquent taxpayer of certain other fees and costs.

The Commonwealth Court in its opinion remanded for further consideration to the lower trial court items (1), (2) and (4) above, and ruled that neither Allegheny County nor the Company had the right to charge attorney's fees to the delinquent taxpayer related to the collection of such tax receivables. The Commonwealth Court further ruled that Allegheny County could assign its rights in the delinquent property tax receivables to the Company, and that plaintiffs could maintain equitable class in the action.

In October 2001, the Company, along with Allegheny County, filed an Application for Extraordinary Jurisdiction with the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, Western District appealing certain aspects of the Commonwealth Court's ruling. In March 2003, the Supreme Court issued its opinion as follows:

(i) the Supreme Court determined that the Company can charge delinquent taxpayers a rate of 12% per annum;

(ii) the Supreme Court remanded back to the lower trial court the charging of a full month's interest on a partial month's delinquency;

(iii) the Supreme Court revised the Commonwealth Court's ruling regarding recouping attorney fees for collection of the receivables indicating that the recoupment of fees requires a judicial review of collection procedures used in each case; and

(iv) the Supreme Court upheld the Commonwealth Court's ruling that GLS can charge certain fees and costs, while remanding back to the lower trial court for consideration the facts of each individual case.

Finally, the Supreme Court remanded to the lower trial court to determine if the remaining claims can be resolved as a class action. In August 2003, the Pennsylvania legislature enacted a law amending and clarifying certain provisions of the Pennsylvania statute governing GLS' right to the collection of certain interest, costs and expenses. The law is retroactive to 1996, and amends and clarifies that as to items (ii)-(iv) noted above by the Supreme Court, that the Company can charge a full month's interest on a partial month's delinquency, that the Company can charge the taxpayer for legal fees, and that it can charge certain fees and costs to the taxpayer at redemption. Subsequent to the enactment of the law, challenges to the retroactivity provisions of the law were filed in separate cases, which did not include the Company as a defendant.

The lower trial court had set the hearing on the class-action status for late April 2005, but the hearing was delayed until no earlier than June 2005. The lower trial court has again reset the hearing on the class-action status until no earlier than September 2005.

GOODY'S FAMILY: Court Refuses Petition For Certiorari in Lawsuit----------------------------------------------------------------The United States Supreme Court denied plaintiffs' petition for writ of certiorari relating to the dismissal of a class action filed against Goody's Family Clothing, Inc. and Robert M. Goodfriend, its chairman of the board and chief executive officer.

Twenty named plaintiffs filed the suit in February 1999, generally alleging that the Company discriminated against a class of African-American employees at its retail stores through the use of discriminatory selection and compensation procedures and by maintaining unequal terms and conditions of employment. The plaintiffs further alleged that the Company maintained a racially hostile working environment.

On February 28, 2003, a proposed Consent Decree was filed with the District Court for its preliminary approval. The proposed Consent Decree sets forth the proposed settlement of the class action race discrimination lawsuit. Ultimately, class action certification was sought in the lawsuit only with respect to alleged discrimination in promotion to management positions and the proposed Consent Decree is limited to such claims.

Generally, the proposed settlement provides for a payment by theCompany in the aggregate amount of $3.2 million to the class members (including the named plaintiffs) and their counsel, as well as the Company's implementation of certain policies, practices and procedures regarding, among other things, training of employees. The Company's employer liability insurance underwriter has funded $3.1 million of such payment to a third-party administrator. The proposed Consent Decree explicitly provides that it is not an admission of liability by the Company and the Company continues to deny all of the allegations.

On April 30, 2003, the District Court granted preliminary approval of the proposed Consent Decree, and a hearing was held on June 30, 2003, regarding the adequacy and fairness of the proposed settlement. On March 3, 2004, the United States District Court for the Middle District of Georgia issued an Order granting final approval of the Consent Decree.

On February 23, 2004, a purported class member filed an appeal with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit, alleging, among other things, misconduct on the part of the District Court and the plaintiff's/appellant's counsel; the Eleventh Circuit dismissed this appeal on March 5, 2004. On March 12, 2004, a Motion to set aside the dismissal was filed with the Eleventh Circuit. On May 28, 2004, the Eleventh Circuit dismissed all appeals regarding this matter. In August 2004, a purported class member filed a Petition for a Writ of Certiorari with the United States Supreme Court regarding the Eleventh Circuit's dismissal of all appeals on this matter; on January 20, 2005, the United States Supreme Court denied the Petition for a Writ of Certiorari. Pursuant to the terms of the March 3, 2004 Order, the District Court will maintain jurisdiction of this matter until July 2006 to monitor the parties' compliance with the Consent Decree.

HOME PRODUCTS: IL Court Dismisses Lawsuit, Fees Ruling Appealed---------------------------------------------------------------Plaintiffs appealed the Chancery Division of the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois' ruling denying their petition for attorneys' fees in the suit filed against Home Products International, Inc. The Court also dismissed the suit, which the plaintiffs did not appeal.

On June 2, 2004, the Company executed an Agreement and Plan of Merger, by and between the Company and JRT Acquisition, as amended by that certain First Amendment to the Agreement and Plan of Merger, dated October 11, 2004. Pursuant to the terms of the JRT Agreement, JRT, an entity formed by James R. Tennant, who at the time was the Company's Chairman and Chief Executive Officer, to merge with and into the Company, and each outstanding share of the Company's common stock was to be exchanged for the right to receive $1.50 in cash.

The complaint purports to be filed by a stockholder and alleges that in entering into the JRT Agreement, the Company's board of directors breached their fiduciary duties of loyalty, due care, independence, good faith and fair dealing. The complaint, which includes a request for a declaration that the action be maintained as a class action, seeks, among other relief, injunctive relief enjoining the transaction from being consummated.

On May 5, 2005, the Illinois Circuit Court dismissed the suit, declaring it moot. The Circuit Court's May 5, 2005 Order also denied plaintiffs petition for attorneys' fees. On June 2, 2005, plaintiffs filed an appeal from the Circuit Court's denial of their petition for attorneys' fees only. Plaintiffs did not appeal the portion of the May 5, 2005 Order that dismissed the complaint. The appeal is pending in the Illinois Appellate Court for the First District.

ILLINOIS: Attorney General's Office Sues Over Illegal Dumping-------------------------------------------------------------Attorney General Lisa Madigan's office filed a lawsuit against a waste hauling company for allegedly dumping more than 300 loads of waste material at an unpermitted landfill in Harvey. Ms. Madigan's office already has taken action against the landfill's owner and operator.

Ms. Madigan's lawsuit alleges that between December 2002 and May 2003, Premier Waste & Recycling, Inc., dumped 308 loads of waste at an unlicensed landfill located at 15600 Commercial St., in Harvey. The landfill, owned by Dresher, Inc., and operated by Willie H. Carter, has never had the proper Illinois Environmental Protection Agency (IEPA) permit for the treatment, storage or disposal of waste.

Ms. Madigan's lawsuit , filed before the Illinois Pollution Control Board (IPCB), charges Premier Waste & Recycling with violations of the Illinois Environmental Protection Act for open dumping of waste and waste disposal at an improper site.

"Waste hauling companies will not avoid prosecution for their role in illegal dumping. While the owners and operators of unlicensed dumping sites are prosecuted more frequently, whenever it can be determined which waste hauling companies illegally dumped debris, we also will seek to hold that company responsible," Ms. Madigan said.

In June 2005, a court found that Carter violated the Illinois Environmental Protection Act by operating an illegal waste disposal business. The court also found that Dresher, Inc., allowed the illegal waste disposal business to operate on its property. The court ordered Carter and Dresher, Inc., to clean up the property. The unpermitted landfill, located only 500 feet from a residential area, contained a pile of debris that was roughly the size of a three-story building, approximately 30 feet high by 300 feet long by 200 feet wide.

Ms. Madigan's lawsuit asks the court to order Premier Waste & Recycling to cease and desist from any future violations of the Illinois environmental protection laws. The lawsuit also asks the court to assess a civil penalty of $50,000 per violation and additional penalties of $10,000 for each day of violation. Assistant Attorney General Christopher Grant is handling the case for Madigan's Environmental Bureau.

IPALCO ENTERPRISES: IN Court Nixes ERISA Suit Summary Judgment--------------------------------------------------------------The United States District Court for the Southern District of Indiana denied both IPALCO Enterprises, Inc.'s and plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment in the class action filed against the Company and certain of its former officers and directors, alleging violations of the Employment Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA).

The suit makes allegations regarding matters arising from the acquisition of the Company by AES Corporation. The suit, filed in March 2002, alleges breach of fiduciary duties with respect to shares held in the Company's subsidiary Indianapolis Power and Light Co.'s (k) thrift plan. The Company filed a motion for summary judgment suit in October 2003, as did the plaintiffs. On August 11, 2005, an Order was entered denying both motions for summary judgment. The Order indicates that the court will meet with counsel in the near future to schedule a bench trial addressed to the fiduciary duty issues.

IPALCO ENTERPRISES: IN Court Dismisses Securities Fraud Lawsuit---------------------------------------------------------------The United States District Court for the Southern District of Indiana dismissed the consolidated securities class action filed against IPALCO Enterprises, Inc. and certain of its former officers.

The lawsuit was filed on behalf of all persons who exchanged their shares of IPALCO common stock for shares of AES common stock. The complaint alleged violations of Section 11 of the Securities Act; Sections 10(b), 14(a) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act and Rules 10b-5 and 14a-9.

On November 17, 2004, the court entered an order dismissing the claims against the former IPALCO officers and, on July 7, 2005, dismissed all claims against all remaining defendants. The plaintiffs' right to file an appeal expired on August 8, 2005.

The lawsuit accuses Legacy of consistently overcharging its poorest and most vulnerable patients -- the uninsured -- by billing them the highest rates without their knowledge. These prices far exceed the amounts that Legacy requires its insured patients to pay for the same exact services. Filed in Multnomah County Circuit Court of Oregon, the suit is part of nationwide litigation against nonprofit hospitals for price gouging and price discrimination against the uninsured commenced by Richard Scruggs and attorneys around the country in June 2004.

John Phillips, the lead attorney for the plaintiffs, responded to Judge Baldwin's ruling by stating, "We are gratified that Judge Baldwin recognized that class certification is appropriate in this case. We will continue to vigorously pursue this lawsuit in order to obtain justice for thousands of uninsured Legacy patients whom we contend Legacy unfairly overcharged and are owed refunds or reductions in their bills."

Legacy is one of the two largest non-profit healthcare systems in Oregon. The defendant hospitals in the case are Legacy Good Samaritan Hospital and Legacy Emanuel Hospital in Portland and Legacy Mount Hood Medical Center in Gresham.

The attorneys representing the plaintiffs are John Phillips and Matthew Geyman of Phillips Law Group, PLLC in Seattle, Washington, (206) 484-0016 and (206) 382-1168; Michael Williams and Brian Campf of Williams Love O'Leary Craine & Powers, P.C. in Portland, Oregon, (503) 849-9899; and Richard Scruggs and Sid Backstrom of the Scruggs Law Firm, P.A. in Oxford, Mississippi, (662) 281-1212.

LIBERATE TECHNOLOGIES: Stockholder Launches Fiduciary Suit in DE----------------------------------------------------------------Leslie J. Lee, a Liberate Technologies stockholder launched a class action complaint in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware, alleging that the Company and certain officers and directors breached their fiduciary duties in connection with a 1-for-250,000 reverse stock split proposed by Liberate.

Ms. Lee purports to bring the action individually and on behalf of a putative class of all stockholders owning fewer than 250,000 shares of Liberate common stock.

Filed on September 19, 2005, the complaint seeks preliminary and permanent injunctive relief against the Stock Split, declaratory relief, rescission of the Stock Split, rescissory and/or compensatory damages and attorneys' fees and expenses.

Additionally, on the day she filed the suit, Ms. Lee also filed a motion for expedited proceedings and a motion for preliminary injunction.

The campground allegedly increased its daily rates and then tripled the price for campsites during the states of emergency and disaster, which is a direct violation of the Price Gouging Statute, La. R.S. 29:732. The company also allegedly eliminated the policy of renting campsites by the day and had police escort evacuees off the property for not paying the inflated new prices.

"I have said in the past I will aggressively pursue those who try to take advantage of citizens who are hit hardest by the hurricane disasters and I meant what I said. Price gouging will not be tolerated in Louisiana," stated Attorney General Foti.

The campground is located at 30218 Highway 16 West in Amite, Louisiana. A number of evacuees from Hurricane Katrina were staying at the campground and RV park on September 12, 2005, when the owners allegedly decided to eliminate daily rates and rent only on a monthly basis at a rate of $900 per month plus hotel and sales taxes.

"By evicting desperate evacuees and by continuing to demand unjustifiably high prices, when such consumers have little to no alternatives, these people are in violation of the spirit of Executive Order KBB05-24, entitled Emergency Occupation of Hotel and Motel Rooms," added Attorney General Foti.

There are both criminal and civil penalties for violations of the price gouging statute. A civil court may order a civil fine of $500 for each violation and restitution for the consumer. A criminal court may order a $500 fine for each violation or six months in jail.

For more information, contact the Public Information Department at (225) 326-6780.

The suit, which is the third to be filed in San Francisco, accuses the world's largest hotel operator of a "steadfast, systemic refusal" to pay the city's minimum wage, now at $8.62 per hour, and also of failing to post required notices announcing the minimum.

In another of the lawsuits, three present and former sales executives who are in their early 60s sued the hotel chain in federal court in the city for age discrimination. The suit was an amended version of a complaint filed last year in state court. The other lawsuit against Marriott was by two golfers who use wheelchairs. They had sued Marriott in federal court in San Francisco in a bid to require the company to provide accessible golf carts at the 80 golf courses it manages nationwide.

Joseph Aubrey and Pamfilo Apostol of San Francisco, and Francisco Serrano and Svitlana Yakushenko of San Mateo County filed the minimum wage lawsuit. All are present or former room service and catering servers at the Marriott Courtyard San Francisco Downtown, at 299 Second St.

The workers allege that they were paid between $7.67 and $7.92 per year in 2004, when the city's minimum wage was $8.50, and between $7.92 and $8.23 this year, when the minimum wage rose to $8.62. The suit seeks to be certified as a class action on behalf of all workers who did not receive the minimum wage and did not work under a collective bargaining agreement that expressly waived the minimum wage. In addition, the suit asks for an injunction that will require the hotel chain to pay the minimum wage, and an award of back pay and punitive damages for the workers.

The city's minimum wage law, which placed the minimum above the state and federal standards, was passed by San Francisco voters in November 2003 and went into effect in February 2004. Court records show that Marriott representatives told the workers last year that their hourly wages were being negotiated by a labor union, Unite Here Local 2, and were not subject to the city's minimum wage law. However, the suit argues Marriott and Local 2 have never signed a collective bargaining agreement for the Marriott Courtyard.

On the subject of the federal age discrimination lawsuit, Marriott spokesman John Wolf noted that the case was originally filed in state court a year ago and told The Bay City News, "It's ongoing and we believe it has no merit."

Another company spokesman, Tom Marder, told The Bay City News that though he could not comment specifically on the golfers' lawsuit he said, "As a matter of policy and practice, we strive to comply with all laws and regulations governing accessibility to public accommodations."

The Washington, D.C.-based Company manages 2,700 hotels and lodgings in 66 counties and had revenue of $10 billion last year.

MAY DEPARTMENT: Investor Fraud Suit Remanded To MO State Court --------------------------------------------------------------The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri remanded the shareholder class action filed against May Department Stores Co. to the Circuit Court of St. Louis, Missouri.

On March 1, 2005, Edward Decristofaro, an alleged Company shareowner, filed a purported class action lawsuit on behalf of all Company shareowners in the Circuit Court of St. Louis, Missouri, against the Company and all of the members of its board of directors. The complaint generally alleges that the directors of the Company breached their fiduciary duties of loyalty, due care, good faith and candor to Company shareowners in connection with the proposed merger.

On April 1, 2005, the defendants removed the lawsuit to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri and filed a motion to dismiss the lawsuit pursuant to the Securities Litigation Standards Act of 1998. On April 22, 2005, the plaintiffs filed a motion to remand the lawsuit to the Circuit Court of St. Louis, Missouri and opposition to the defendants' motion to dismiss. On June 28, 2005, plaintiffs' motion to remand the lawsuit back to the Circuit Court of St. Louis, Missouri was granted.

MEDIEVAL TIMES: Ex-"Knight" Sues For Worker' Compensation Claims----------------------------------------------------------------A former employee performing as a jousting "knight" at a Medieval Times dinner theater in Illinois initiated a federal class action lawsuit, alleging that he was discriminated against for filing and receiving workers' compensation benefits, The Chicago Tribune reports.

In his lawsuit, Garrett Bonham, 29, seeks more than $75,000 for injuries sustained in his ten years of employment as a performing knight at the Schaumburg, Illinois branch of Medieval Times. Though filed as a class action lawsuit on behalf of other former employees, the suit has yet to be certified.

Mr. Bonham alleges that Medieval Times managers circulated a memo in April 2003 indicating the company's concern with the increasing cost of workers' compensation claims. In addition, he also alleges that managers threatened employees with firing if they filed such claims. He stated in his suit that he received workers' compensation settlements for previous injuries.

Court records show that when performing as knights, the plaintiff wore armor costumes of cotton and polyester and used real swords and lances in their jousting competitions. In his suit, Mr. Bonham alleges that he was "required to engage in dangerous activities such as physical battles, jousting matches, and riding horses in an enclosed space at full gallop speeds of up to 35 miles per hour."

Medieval Times operates eight dinner theaters throughout the U.S. and Canada.

The suit is styled, "Bonham v. Medieval Knights, LLC, Case No. 1:05-cv-05566," filed in the United States District Court for the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, under Judge James F. Holderman. Representing the Plaintiff is Ted A. Donner of Donner & Co. Law Offices, LLC, 1131 Wheaton Oaks Court, Wheaton, IL 60187, Phone: 630-588-7131, E-mail: tdonner@donnerco.com.

NEW YORK: Court Certifies Class in Natural Gas Commodity Lawsuit----------------------------------------------------------------Labaton Sucharow & Rudoff, LLP, reports that the Court in In re Natural Gas Commodity Litigation, File No. 03-CV-6186, in the Southern District of New York, issued a decision certifying a class of futures traders who were harmed by defendants' manipulation of the price of natural gas futures contracts traded on the New York Mercantile Exchange (NYMEX) from January 1, 2000 to December 31, 2002. Labaton Sucharow is co-lead counsel for plaintiffs in this action. Potential class members will receive notice of their rights through a notice program to be approved by the Court.

Plaintiffs allege that over twenty defendants, among them the largest energy companies in the United States, including El Paso Merchant Energy L.P., Reliant Energy Services Inc., AEP Energy Services, Inc., Aquila Energy Marketing Corp., Dynegy Marketing and Trade, CMS, Coral Energy Resources, LP, Williams Companies, Inc., and E-Prime, Inc., manipulated the price of natural gas by engaging in false reports of the price and volume of their trades to sources that publish indices of natural gas prices, which caused damages to futures traders and others, who rely on the indices for accurate information about the market. In addition, Plaintiffs allege that several of these defendants engaged in wash trading, churning, and other market gaming strategies, which created the illusion of false liquidity in the market, and further manipulated the price of natural gas.

Judge Victor Marrero of the Southern District of New York had previously issued a decision denying defendants' motions to dismiss the action. In its class certification decision, the Court concluded that Plaintiffs had satisfied the requirements for class certification, including the provision of a methodology for proving damages to Plaintiffs and the class. The court's certification of a class for a three-year period is unprecedented in the history of commodity manipulation class actions.

Plaintiffs continue to actively litigate their damages claims through discovery. This decision significantly improves the prospects for obtaining a substantial monetary recovery for those injured by defendants' alleged manipulation of the natural gas futures market.

NII-JII ENTERTAINMENT: Judge OKs Deal For Kenosha Casino Project----------------------------------------------------------------Investors in a company that planned to develop a casino at Dairyland Greyhound Park in Kenosha, Wisconsin will recover losses under a $7.75 million settlement approved by a judge, according to a lawyer for the plaintiffs, The Janesville Gazette reports.

Racine County Circuit Judge Gerald Ptacek recently approved the settlement, which both parties in the case had reached the last September 13.

Attorney George Kersten told The Janesville Gazette that the settlement of the class action suit against NII-JII Entertainment LLC would provide funds for a group of about 60 individuals and other entities to recoup their principal investment costs.

Filed in 2001, the suit was an attempt by investors to recover losses from investing in NII-JII, which was formed in the late 1990s for the proposed project to develop a casino for the Menominee tribe at Dairyland. The proposal never won government approval and was withdrawn in 2001.

Last May, a jury awarded about $242 million in damages to the plaintiffs and to NII-JII in a finding against NII-JII principals and defendants Robert Boyle, Morgan Murphy Jr. and Morgan Murphy III, all of Chicago. In that verdict the jury found the Murphys and Mr. Boyle concealed links of Morgan Murphy Jr. to two convicted Chicago crime figures.

The defendants had indicated that if Judge Ptacek did not approve the settlement before October 17, the date the new federal bankruptcy code goes into effect, they would file for bankruptcy, jeopardizing the ability of plaintiffs to receive compensation.

Retired state Appeals Judge Gordon Myse served as mediator for the settlement talks. He told Janesville Gazette that the mediation was "difficult, contentious and protracted."

Upon approving the settlement, Judge Ptacek congratulated attorneys on both sides for resolving the dispute. He noted, "If there is complex litigation, by all means this is it."

OM GROUP: OH Court Preliminarily Approves Securities Fraud Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------The United States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio, Eastern Division granted preliminary approval to the settlement for the consolidated securities class action filed against OM Group, Inc.

In November 2002, the Company received notice that two shareholder class action lawsuits, styled "Sheth v. OM Group, Inc., et al., case no. 1:02CV2163, and "Rischitelli v. OM Group, Inc., et al., case No. 1:02CV2189," were filed against the Company related to a decline in the Company's stock price after its third quarter 2002 earnings announcement. The lawsuits allege virtually identical claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and SEC Rule 10b-5 against the Company, its former Chief Executive Officer and Chairman, its former Chief Financial Officer and the members of the Board of Directors. Plaintiffs seek damages in an unspecified amount to compensate persons who purchased the Company's stock at various dates between November 2001 andOctober 2002 at allegedly inflated market prices. In July 2004, these class action lawsuits were amended to include 1999 through 2001 and to add the Company's independent auditors, Ernst & Young LLP, as a defendant.

In November 2002, the Company also received notice that shareholder derivative lawsuit, styled "Cropper, et al. v. Lee R. Brodeur, et al. case No. 1-03-0021," was filed in the same court against the members of the Company's Board of Directors. Derivative plaintiffs allege the directors breached their fiduciary duties to the Company in connection with a decline in the Company's stock price after its third quarter 2002 earnings announcement by failing to institute sufficient financial controls to ensure that the Company and its employees complied with generally accepted accounting principles by writing down the value of the Company's cobalt inventory on or before December 31, 2001. Derivative plaintiffs seek a number of changes to the Company's accounting, financial and management structures and unspecified damages from the directors to compensate the Company for costs incurred in, among other things, defending the aforementioned securities lawsuits. In July 2004, the derivative plaintiffs amended these lawsuits to include conduct allegedly related to the Company's decision to restate its earnings for the period 1999-2003.

The Company has been engaged in mediation sessions with the plaintiffs regarding the shareholder class action and shareholder derivative lawsuits. The Company anticipates these lawsuits will be resolved during 2005. The Company and the lead plaintiff of the shareholder class action lawsuits have entered into an "Agreement to Settle Class Action" (Agreement) dated March 7, 2005, which is an agreement in principle that outlines the general terms of a proposed settlement of these lawsuits subject to the satisfaction of various conditions and execution of a definitive agreement.

Based on the Agreement and the Company's consideration of the shareholder derivative lawsuits described above, the Company has reserved $84.5 million at December 31, 2003 for the settlement of these cases, which is proposed to be payable $76.0 million in cash and $8.5 million in common stock. Insurance proceeds are expected to be available for contribution to the resolution of the cases but the Company does not expect these lawsuits to be resolved within the limits of applicable insurance.

The Company and lead plaintiff of these lawsuits have entered into a Stipulation and Agreement of Settlement dated June 6, 2005, which Agreement was preliminary approved on June 24, 2005 by the United States District Court hearing the case. The settlement is to be payable $74 million in cash and $8.5 million in common stock of the Company.

On June 21, 2002, the Commission filed accounting fraud charges in federal district court in the Middle District of Pennsylvania against Mr. Brown, Martin L. Grass, Rite Aid's former CEO and Frank M. Bergonzi, Rite Aid's former CFO. On September 30, 2005, the Hon. Sylvia H. Rambo signed a final judgment against Mr. Brown, to which Mr. Brown consented without admitting or denying the allegations in the Commission's complaint.

The Commission's case had been stayed pending the outcome of related criminal actions filed by the United States Attorney for the Middle District of Pennsylvania against Mr. Brown and others. In October 2003, Brown was convicted in the related criminal proceedings for his conduct at Rite Aid. In October 2004, Mr. Brown was sentenced to ten years in prison and ordered to pay a $20,000 fine.

In its civil action, the Commission alleged that Mr. Brown, Mr. Grass and Mr. Bergonzi conducted a wide-ranging accounting fraud scheme that resulted in the significant inflation of Rite Aid's net income in every quarter from May 1997 to May 1999. The Commission also charged Mr. Brown and Mr. Grass with concealing certain related party transactions that enriched Mr. Grass at shareholder expense, and it charged Mr. Grass with fabricating Board committee minutes in order to support a false statement he made in connection with obtaining a loan critical to keeping Rite Aid in business. After the discovery of improper and unsubstantiated accounting transactions, in July and October 2000 Rite Aid restated cumulative pretax income by a massive $2.3 billion dollars and cumulative net income by $1.6 billion dollars. Rite Aid's restatement was, at the time, the largest financial restatement ever by a public company. The Commission's subsequent investigation into the reasons for the restatement culminated in its charges against Brown and his fellow executives.

The final judgment bars Mr. Brown from acting as an officer or director of a public company. In addition, Mr. Brown is permanently enjoined from future violations of the antifraud, reporting, books and records, internal controls, proxy, and other provisions of the Securities Act of 1933 and the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, specifically Section 17(a) of the Securities Act, Sections 10(b) and 13(b)(5) of the Exchange Act, and Rules 10b-5, 13b2-1, and 13b2-2 thereunder, and, as a controlling person pursuant to Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act, Sections 13(a), 13(b)(2), and 14(a) of the Exchange Act and Rules 12b-20, 13a-1, 13a-11, and 14a-9(a). The judgment further provides that the Commission's claim for disgorgement of ill-gotten gains and prejudgment interest will be waived due to Brown's inability to pay, and that no civil penalty will be imposed in view of Brown's personal financial condition. The suit is styled, SEC v. Frank M. Bergonzi, Martin L. Grass, and Franklin C. Brown, No. 1:CV02-1084, M.D.Pa. (LR-19409).

SBARRO INC.: FL Consumers File Suit V. Bottled Water Sales Taxes----------------------------------------------------------------Sbarro, Inc. and over 100 other defendants face two separate purported class actions alleging virtually identical claims, one action was filed in the Circuit Court of the State of Florida in Hillsbury County and the other action was filed in United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida.

All of the other named defendants are well-recognized quick service and/or casual dining entities. The suits allege that defendants violated various Florida State and Federal Statutes by charging sales tax on the retail sales of natural bottled waters.

SIGHT RESOURCE: SEC Charges CFO, CEO with Securities Violations---------------------------------------------------------------The U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission instituted settled administrative and cease-and-desist proceedings against the former CFO, Duane Kimble, and former CEO, Carene Kunkler, of Sight Resource Corporation, a Cincinnati, Ohio-based distributor and retailer of eyewear. In its order, the SEC found that Mr. Kimble and Ms. Kunkler violated, directly or indirectly, certain reporting, record keeping, and internal controls provisions of the federal securities laws, and Mr. Kimble engaged in securities fraud. In a settled civil action filed in United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio, the SEC is seeking civil penalties against Mr. Kimble and Ms. Kunkler.

According to the SEC, during Sight Resource's 2002 fiscal year, Kimble made, and directed other Sight Resource accounting personnel to make, journal entries with inadequate documentation. The entries had the effect of improving the appearance of the company's financial condition. The entries, coupled with other accounting errors, also permitted, on two occasions, Sight Resource to satisfy its bank loan debt covenants, which prescribed, on a quarterly basis, a maximum allowable net loss. If Sight Resource had breached its debt covenants, it could have been charged penalties and possibly a higher interest rate by the lender.

The SEC's order also found that on March 28, 2003, and April 14, 2003, Sight Resource filed Forms 12b-25 and 8-K that gave false and misleading explanations of why Sight Resource was unable to file its 2002 Form 10-K on time. The Forms 12b-25 and 8-K were reviewed prior to filing by Mr. Kimble and Ms. Kunkler, and signed by Kimble. Moreover, according to the SEC, Mr. Kimble and Ms. Kunkler failed to establish adequate internal controls at Sight Resource and, on November 18, 2002, filed false and misleading Sarbanes-Oxley Act certifications relating to the company's disclosure controls.

Without admitting or denying the findings in the SEC's order, or the allegations in the SEC's complaint, Mr. Kimble and Ms. Kunkler have agreed to cease and desist from committing or causing violations of Section 13(b)(5) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 13a-14 thereunder, and from causing violations of Sections 13(a), 13(b)(2)(A), and 13(b)(2)(B) of the Exchange Act and Rules 12b-20, 12b-25, 13a-11 and 13a-13 thereunder. They have also consented to pay civil money penalties.

Furthermore, Mr. Kimble has agreed to cease and desist from committing or causing violations of Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act and Rules 10b-5, 13b2-1, and 13b2-2 thereunder; and consented to the institution of proceedings, under Rule 102(e)(1)(iii) of the Commission's Rules of Practice, based on his willful violations of the federal securities laws, denying him the privilege of appearing or practicing before the Commission as an accountant, with the right to apply for reinstatement in three years.

SPRINT COMMUNICATIONS: Lawsuit Filed Over Transmission Tower Use----------------------------------------------------------------The newly launched commercial and consumer litigation department of the law Williams Bailey Law Firm, L.L.P., which will focus on contract disputes, business torts and consumer class actions, initiated a class action lawsuit against Sprint Communications Company L.P. on behalf of thousands of landowners in Texas.

Filed in federal district court in Kansas, the worldwide headquarters for Sprint, the suit contends that easement laws permit electricity providers to build transmissions towers on private property exclusively for the transmission of electrical power. However, without the consent of property owners, Sprint has used these existing towers to erect their own cellular phone antennae.

"The law is very clear: the easement extends only to the transmission and distribution of electricity," said Armi Easterby, Williams Bailey attorney and leader of the new department. "Sprint signed a deal with Texas energy companies without permission from landowners. We plan to vindicate the property rights of all affected Texans in this matter."

The suit is styled, "Gates v. Sprint Communications Company, L.P. et al, Case No. 2:05-cv-02340-CM-JPO," filed in the United States District Court for the District of Kansas, under Judge Carlos Murguia. Representing the Plaintiff/s are:

UNITED CURRENCY: SEC Obtains Final Judgments V. Adam Swickle------------------------------------------------------------On September 23, 2005, and August 3, 2005, the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York entered final judgments by default against United Currency Group, Inc. (UCG) and Adam Swickle. The final judgments permanently enjoin the defendants from violating Section 17(a) of the Securities Act of 1933, Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule 10b-5 thereunder. In addition, the final judgment entered against Mr. Swickle orders him to pay disgorgement of $483,989 plus prejudgment interest of $107,841.84, and imposes a civil monetary penalty of $120,000.

The Commission's complaint alleged that defendants Mr. Swickle and UCG conducted a fraudulent offering of UCG securities. Specifically, beginning in May 2001 and continuing through December 2002, Mr. Swickle solicited investments in UCG through an unregistered offering of securities. In connection with the offering, Mr. Swickle circulated private placement memoranda to prospective investors that contained material misrepresentations, and omitted material facts, about the identity of UCG's officers and directors, Mr. Swickle's background, and UCG's and Mr. Swickle's use of corporate funds. In addition, Mr. Swickle made oral misrepresentations to potential investors about UCG's plans to conduct an initial public offering and about the price levels that UCG stock would achieve once it became publicly traded.

Defendant UCG failed to respond to the Commission's complaint, and defendant Mr. Swickle failed to defend the action. Accordingly, the Commission sought the entry of the final judgments against the defendants based on their defaults. See LR-18471. The action is styled, SEC v. United Currency Group, Inc. et al., 03 CV 9161, S.D.N.Y. (LR-19411).

VERMONT TEDDY: Amended Complaint Filed in NY V. Proposed Merger---------------------------------------------------------------Shareholders of The Vermont Teddy Bear Co., Inc. (TVBC) filed an amended and consolidated class action complaint in the in the Commercial Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York, County of Nassau that challenges that proposed merger transaction with Hibernation Holding Company, Inc., a Delaware corporation, and Hibernation Company, Inc., a Delaware corporation and wholly-owned subsidiary of Hibernation Holding Company, Inc.

On June 14, 2005, VTBC was served with a summons and complaint in each of two separate legal actions commenced in the Supreme Court of the State of New York, County of Nassau, one is an action brought by Keith Griffin of Long Island, New York, which was filed on June 3, 2005 and the other is an action brought by Robert Totero of Sun City Center, Florida, which was filed June 8, 2005.

By a court order entered on September 7, 2005, the actions were consolidated. The court order stated that an amended and consolidated class action complaint be filed and served as soon as practicable after consolidation.

Thus, the plaintiffs filed the amended and consolidated class action complaint on September 19, 2005, which alleges that the named plaintiffs are shareholders of VTBC, who are suing on behalf of themselves and all other similarly situated parties.

The amended complaint seeks to challenge the proposed merger transaction reported by VTBC in its Current Report on Form 8-K filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) on May 17, 2005 and as described in VTBC's definitive Proxy Statement on Form 14A filed with the SEC on September 2, 2005. It names as defendants VTBC and each individual member of VTBC's board of directors, as well as the Buyer and affiliated entities.

Specifically, the amended complaint alleges that the defendants breached their fiduciary duties to shareholders by, among other things, failing to maximize shareholder value with respect to the proposed merger transaction and failing to disclose material information regarding the proposed merger.

The complaint seeks certification as a class action, with the named plaintiffs to be certified as class representatives, and also seeks declaratory and injunctive relief, enjoining the proposed merger transaction, as well as unspecified compensatory damages, attorneys' fees, costs of the litigation, and other unspecified relief.

Currently, VTBC has not responded to the amended complaint though its time to do so has not expired yet, since the plaintiffs served discovery requests on or about September 9, 2005. A pretrial conference with the court is scheduled for October 24, 2005.

The plaintiffs and the defendants though in the litigation have engaged in negotiations that have led to a settlement agreement. The terms of such a settlement are reflected in a memorandum of understanding, which was signed on September 20, 2005. The memorandum of understanding provides for the negotiation of a formal stipulation of cash settlement and, ultimately, court consideration of the proposed settlement based on the additional disclosures in the Company's supplement to the proxy statement and other customary terms, including, but not limited to, a release of all defendants from all claims that were or could have been asserted in the action or otherwise arise out of or relate to the transaction contemplated by the Merger Agreement, and the contents of the proxy statement and related matters and a denial of any wrongdoing or liability on the part of all defendants.

VIRBAC CORPORATION: Reaches Settlement For TX Securities Lawsuit----------------------------------------------------------------Virbac Corporation reached a settlement for the consolidated securities class action filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas, Fort Worth Division against it and certain of its officers and directors.

On December 15, 2003, Martine Williams, a Company stockholder, filed a putative securities class action lawsuit against the Company and:

(1) Virbac S.A. (VBSA),

(2) Thomas L. Bell (the Company's former President, Chief Executive Officer and member of the Company's Board of Directors),

The complaint asserted claims against the Company and the individual defendants based on securities fraud under Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended and Rule 10b-5 of the Exchange Act and claims against VBSA and the individual defendants based on "control person" liability under Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act.

On May 19, 2004, the "Williams v. Virbac et al." lawsuit was consolidated with a separate lawsuit filed by John Otley, which contained virtually identical allegations to those claimed by Martine Williams, and the court appointed lead counsel for the plaintiffs. On September 10, 2004, plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended class action complaint, asserting claims against the Company and the individual defendants based on securities fraud under Section 10(b) under the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5, and asserting claims against VBSA and the individual defendants for violation of Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act as alleged "control persons" of the Company.

Plaintiffs generally allege in the Amended Complaint that the defendants caused the Company to recognize and record revenue that it had not earned; that the Company thereupon issued financial statements, press releases and other public statements that were false and materially misleading; that these false and misleading statements operated as a "fraud on the market," inflating the price of the Company's publicly traded stock; and that when accurate information about the Company's actual revenue and earnings emerged, the price of the Company's Common Stock sharply declined, allegedly damaging plaintiffs. Plaintiffs seek to recover monetary compensation for all damages sustained as a result of the defendants' alleged wrongdoing, in an amount to be determined at trial (including pre-judgment and post-judgment interest thereon), costs and expenses incurred in connection with the lawsuit (including attorneys' fees and expert witnesses' fees), and such other and further relief as the court may deem just and proper.

The Company filed a motion to dismiss the Amended Complaint on December 10, 2004, as did defendants Bell and Rougraff. Defendants VBSA and Boissy filed a joint motion to dismiss on December 14, 2004. On February 11, 2005, plaintiffs filed a consolidated opposition against all defendants' motions to dismiss. On March 11, 2005, the Company, Mr. Bell, and Mr. Rougraff each filed separate replies to plaintiffs' consolidated opposition. Defendants VBSA and Boissy filed a joint reply on March 11, 2005.

In May 2005, the parties agreed to submit to mediation in an effort to resolve the action. On May 23, 2005, the Court stayed the action to allow the parties to mediate. On June 27, 2005, the parties engaged in a mediation session and reached a settlement in principle. The Court has extended the stay until September 9, 2005, to allow the parties to finalize the settlement documents and submit them to the Court for approval. Assuming that the settlement is finalized and approved by the Court, the Company anticipates that the settlement amount will be fully funded by existing insurance.

According to the company, the decorative covering on the candles can ignite, posing a fire and burn hazard. Wal-Mart has received six reports of the candles catching fire including two incidents that resulted in approximately $6,200 in property damage. Another incident resulted in minor property damage. No injuries have been reported.

One recalled candle gift set includes three birch bark-covered candles. Each candle measures 3 inches wide but vary in height from 3 to 6 inches. The candles are displayed on a stand with pinecones, cinnamon sticks and red berries. The second recalled candle gift set includes a display stand with three pyramid-shaped candles varying in height from 8 to 12 inches. The candles are either blue with a silver glitter criss-cross pattern or red with a gold glitter criss-cross pattern. Both candle sets were sold under the Holiday TimeT brand name written on the box.

Manufactured in China, the sets were sold at all Wal-Mart stores nationwide from September 2004 through January 2005 for about $10.

Remedy: Consumers should immediately stop using the candles and return them to Wal-Mart for a full refund.

Consumer Contact: For additional information, contact Dan Dee International at (800) 477-8697 between 8:30 a.m. and 5:30 p.m. ET Monday through Friday, or visit Wal-Mart's Web site at http://www.walmartstores.com.

New Securities Fraud Cases

ABERCROMBIE & FITCH: Brodsky & Smith Files Securities Suit in OH----------------------------------------------------------------The Law offices of Brodsky & Smith, LLC, initiated a securities class action lawsuit on behalf of shareholders who purchased the common stock and other securities of Abercrombie & Fitch Co. (NYSE: ANF) ("Abercrombie" or the "Company") between June 2, 2005 and August 16, 2005, inclusive (the "Class Period"). The class action lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio.

The Complaint alleges that defendants violated federal securities laws by issuing a series of material misrepresentations to the market during the Class Period, thereby artificially inflating the price of Abercrombie securities. No class has yet been certified in the above action.

The case is pending in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, against the company and certain key officers and directors.

The action charges that defendants violated the federal securities laws by issuing a series of materially false and misleading statements to the market throughout the Class Period which statements had the effect of artificially inflating the market price of the Company's securities. No class has yet been certified in the above action.

AMERIGROUP CORPORATION: Finkelstein Thompson Lodges Suit in VA--------------------------------------------------------------The law firm of Finkelstein, Thompson & Loughran initiated a lawsuit seeking class action status in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia on behalf of purchasers of AMERIGROUP Corporation ("AMERIGROUP") common stock during the period between April 27, 2005 and September 28, 2005 (the "Class Period"). Finkelstein, Thompson & Loughran is investigating similar claims at this time and welcomes inquiries from potential class members concerning their rights and interests in this matter.

The complaint alleges that during the Class Period, defendants caused AMERIGROUP's shares to trade at artificially inflated levels by issuing a series of materially false and misleading statements regarding the Company's financial statements, business and prospects, specifically by failing to account for at least $23 million in medical costs incurred in prior quarters but not included in the results for those quarters. This caused the Company's stock to trade as high as $49.30 per share during the Class Period. Defendants took advantage of this artificial inflation, selling 170,712 shares of their AMERIGROUP stock for proceeds of $6.1 million.

Thereafter, on September 28, 2005, after the market closed, the Company issued a press release announcing that "it expects to report a third quarter 2005 loss of $0.06 to $0.08 per diluted share, as compared to current consensus earnings estimate of $0.48 per diluted share. As a result, the Company will not meet its 2005 annual earnings guidance of $1.73 to $1.78 per diluted share. The third quarter results will include additional estimated medical costs related to services performed in prior periods, primarily the first and second quarters of 2005, of approximately $23 million, or $0.26 per diluted share .... Third quarter earnings per diluted share, excluding the impact of the prior period development, are estimated to be $0.18 to $0.20 as compared to current consensus earnings estimate of $0.48 per diluted share."

On this news, AMERIGROUP's stock fell $14.70 per share to as low as $19.21 per share before closing at $19.81 per share on volume of 8.4 million shares, more than 12 times the daily average. This was a one-day decline of over 40%.

AMERIGROUP CORPORATION: Marc Henzel Lodges Securities Suit in VA----------------------------------------------------------------The Law Offices of Marc S. Henzel initiated a class action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia on behalf of purchasers of AMERIGROUP Corporation (NYSE: AGP) common stock during the period between April 27, 2005 and September 28, 2005 (the "Class Period").

The complaint charges AMERIGROUP and certain of its officers and directors with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. AMERIGROUP operates as a multi-state managed healthcare company focused on serving people who receive healthcare benefits through publicly sponsored programs, such as Medicaid, State Children's Health Insurance Program and FamilyCare.

The complaint alleges that during the Class Period, defendants caused AMERIGROUP's shares to trade at artificially inflated levels by issuing a series of materially false and misleading statements regarding the Company's financial statements, business and prospects, specifically by failing to account for at least $23 million in medical costs incurred in prior quarters but not included in the results for those quarters. This caused the Company's stock to trade as high as $49.30 per share during the Class Period. Defendants took advantage of this artificial inflation, selling 170,712 shares of their AMERIGROUP stock for proceeds of $6.1 million.

Then on September 28, 2005, after the market closed, the Company issued a press release announcing that "it expects to report a third quarter 2005 loss of $0.06 to $0.08 per diluted share, as compared to current consensus earnings estimate of $0.48 per diluted share. As a result, the Company will not meet its 2005 annual earnings guidance of $1.73 to $1.78 per diluted share. The third quarter results will include additional estimated medical costs related to services performed in prior periods, primarily the first and second quarters of 2005, of approximately $23 million, or $0.26 per diluted share. . . . Third quarter earnings per diluted share, excluding the impact of the prior period development, are estimated to be $0.18 to $0.20 as compared to current consensus earnings estimate of $0.48 per diluted share."

On this news, AMERIGROUP's stock fell $14.70 per share to as low as $19.21 per share before closing at $19.81 per share on volume of 8.4 million shares, more than 12 times the daily average.

BOSTON SCIENTIFIC: Scott + Scott Lodges Securities Suit in MA-------------------------------------------------------------The law firm of Scott + Scott, LLC, initiated a securities class action in the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts (Case Number 05-cv-11912-JLT) against Boston Scientific Corporation ("Boston Scientific") (NYSE: BSX). Boston Scientific securities purchasers between March 31, 2003 and August 23, 2005, inclusive (the "Class Period") are putative class members.

The complaint filed on September 21, 2005, alleges that during the Class Period, Boston Scientific and certain individual defendants violated provisions of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, causing its stock to trade at artificially inflated levels. The complaint alleges that Boston Scientific provided highly explicit false and misleading assurances of the Company's ability to satisfy FDA regulations governing its medical device product quality, as well as affirmative representations as to the Company's knowledge and expertise regarding design, development, marketing approval and sales of its medical devices. The complaint further alleges that there was over $400 million worth of shares sold through insider trading.

On August 23, 2005, based on the cumulative impact of three separate FDA Warning Letters, investors learned of defendants' broad-based concealment of its broken quality program and the risks the Company faced. As a result, Boston Scientific's stock price dropped $1.23, or 4.5% to $25.92, on volume of 15.8 million shares - nearly $19.89 or 43.4% from its Class Period high of $45.81 on April 5, 2004.

In addition to the securities fraud allegations, on September 21, 2005, Boston Scientific agreed to pay $750 million to its former partner in a settlement that ended a bitter contract dispute over the sale of heart stents. The agreement dissolved a 10-year relationship between Boston Scientific and Medinol, a small Israeli firm. On September 26, 2005, it was announced that Medinol plans to bring a patent infringement action pursuing future royalties on next-generation Boston Scientific stent products. "It's going to cover the Liberte and other products of theirs that we say infringe on our intellectual property," said Medinol's attorney Rory Millson.

The case is pending in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio, against the company and certain key officers and directors.

The action charges that defendants violated the federal securities laws by issuing a series of materially false and misleading statements to the market throughout the Class Period which statements had the effect of artificially inflating the market price of the Company's securities. No class has yet been certified in the above action.

DANA CORPORATION: Charles J. Piven Lodges Securities Suit in OH---------------------------------------------------------------The Law Offices Of Charles J. Piven, P.A., filed a securities class action on behalf of shareholders who purchased, converted, exchanged or otherwise acquired the common stock of Dana Corporation (NYSE: DCN) between March 23, 2005 and September 14, 2005, inclusive (the "Class Period").

The case is pending in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio against defendant Dana Corporation and one or more of its officers and/or directors. The action charges that defendants violated federal securities laws by issuing a series of materially false and misleading statements to the market throughout the Class Period, which statements had the effect of artificially inflating the market price of the Company's securities. No class has yet been certified in the above action.

DANA CORPORATION: Goldman Scarlato Lodges Securities Suit in OH---------------------------------------------------------------The law firm of Goldman Scarlato & Karon, P.C., initiated a lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio, on behalf of persons who purchased or otherwise acquired publicly traded securities of Dana Corporation ("Dana" or the "Company") (NYSE:DCN) between March 23, 2005 and September 14, 2005, inclusive (the "Class Period"). The lawsuit was filed against Dana and Michael J. Burns and Robert C. Richter ("Defendants").

The complaint alleges that Defendants violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. Specifically, the complaint alleges that during the Class Period, the Company made representations regarding the Company's historical financial performance and condition that were materially false and misleading. These statements were false and misleading because:

(1) the Company had improperly accounted for price increases, inflating income in the second quarter of 2005;

(2) the Company's purported financial success was the result of improper accounting; and

(3) as a result the Company's guidance lacked any reasonable basis and could not be met without a significant drop in raw material prices.

On September 15, 2005, before the market opened, the Company issued a press release announcing that it would restate second quarter results and that it was dramatically reducing guidance for 2005, to $0.60 - $0.70 per share from $1.30 - $1.45. In addition, the Company commented that it may be in violation of certain loan covenants, and that it might have to write down the value of certain U.S. deferred tax assets. In reaction to the announcement, Dana's stock price fell dramatically, declining from $12.78 per share on September 14, 2005 to $9.86 per share on September 15, 2005, a decline of approximately 23%.

SPECTRUM BRANDS: Marc Henzel Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in GA---------------------------------------------------------------The Law Offices of Marc S. Henzel initiated a class action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia on behalf of all persons who purchased the publicly traded securities of Spectrum Brands, Inc. (NYSE:SPC) between January 4, 2005 and September 6, 2005 (the ``Class Period'').

The complaint alleges that Spectrum Brands violated federal securities laws by issuing false or misleading public statements. Specifically, the Complaint alleges that Spectrum Brands made certain positive statements about its business and predicted favorable financial results which, given the downturn in its core battery business, were false or misleading when such statements were made. On July 28, 2005, Spectrum Brands reported disappointing financial results for 3Q05 and revealed that, as a result of a material decline in its core battery products, it could not meet its guidance for either fiscal 2005 or 2006. On September 7, 2005, Spectrum Brands revealed that earnings for the fourth quarter ending September 30, 2005 would be "substantially lower," attributing the shortfall to weak sales and "high (retail) inventory levels." On this news, Spectrum Brands stock closed at $25.25 per share on September 7, 2005, down from a close of $29.12 per share on September 6, 2005 and a close of $38.37 per share on July 27, 2005.

A list of Meetings, Conferences and Seminars appears in eachWednesday's edition of the Class Action Reporter. Submissionsvia e-mail to carconf@beard.com are encouraged.

Each Friday's edition of the CAR includes a section featuringnews on asbestos-related litigation and profiles of targetasbestos defendants that, according to independent researches,collectively face billions of dollars in asbestos-relatedliabilities.

This material is copyrighted and any commercial use, resale or publication in any form (including e-mail forwarding, electronic re-mailing and photocopying) is strictly prohibited without prior written permission of the publishers.

Information contained herein is obtained from sources believed to be reliable, but is not guaranteed.

The CAR subscription rate is $575 for six months delivered via e-mail. Additional e-mail subscriptions for members of the same firm for the term of the initial subscription or balance thereof are $25 each. For subscription information, contact Christopher Beard at 240/629-3300.